House prices and birth rates: The impact of the real estate market on the decision to have a baby

Quote:

Abstract

This project investigates how changes in Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)-level house prices affect household fertility decisions. Recognizing that housing is a major cost associated with child rearing, and assuming that children are normal goods, we hypothesize that an increase in house prices will have a negative price effect on current period fertility. This applies to both potential first-time homeowners and current homeowners who might upgrade to a bigger house with the addition of a child. On the other hand, for current homeowners, an increase in MSA-level house prices will increase home equity, leading to a positive effect on birth rates. Our results suggest that indeed, short-term increases in house prices lead to a decline in births among non-owners and a net increase among owners. The estimates imply that a $10,000 increase leads to a 5% increase in fertility rates among owners and a 2.4% decrease among non-owners. At the mean U.S. home ownership rate, these estimates imply that the net effect of a $10,000 increase in house prices is a 0.8% increase in current period fertility rates. Given underlying differences in home ownership rates, the predicted net effect of house price changes varies across demographic groups. In addition, we find that changes in house prices exert a larger effect on current period birth rates than do changes in unemployment rates

The above results could be linked to housing bubbles occurring at times of full employment. What is interesting is how renters fertility rates decrease.

While the effect of family changes on housing choices has been studied in detail, little is known about childbearing patterns within various housing types, despite the fact that many studies suggest housing as an important determinant of fertility. We use longitudinal register data from Finland and apply hazard regression. Firstly, we observe a significant variation in the fertility levels across housing types – fertility is highest among couples in single-family houses and lowest among those in apartments, with the variation remaining significant even after controlling for the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of women. Secondly, our results show elevated fertility levels after couples have changed their housing, suggesting that much of the fertility variation across housing types could be attributed to selective moves. Thirdly, the study also reveals relatively a high risk of third birth for couples in single-family houses several years after the move, suggesting that living in spacious housing and in a family-friendly environment for a longer time may lead to higher fertility

I.e urbanisation and higher density living will lead to lower fertility rates.During the bubble huge numbers of apartments and townhouses were built. Feck all 4 bed semi-ds or detached houses were built.Feck all 3/4 bed apartments were built either.

"Why, in a city like Sydney, where you had wonderful inner ring suburbs, with single family homes, very pleasant places, places you want to raise kids, do they want to densify them and turn them into places people don't want to raise kids?" he said.

"Where you have high amounts of high-density housing you have very low birth rates ... where you have density, you tend to have very few children."

Professor Kotkin, fellow at California's Chapman University and London think-tank the Legatum Institute, said high density was more effective at limiting the number of children than China's one-child policy.

Here is an old thread with stats on what types of accommodation was built during the bubble ( for some of the years anyway)viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1861

From that thread.....in 2004 out of a total of 76,554 completions, 16,106 were apartments, double the mount built in the year 2000. 21% of all completions. By 2008 67% of properties built in Dublin were apartments. By this stage 10% of the housing stock had become apartments.

So when it comes to raising children would living in an apartment put you off somewhat? Would you prefer to move to a house?It also raises sustainability of urban centers somewhat. To what point do we keep densifying? To what end? At what point do you say we are now decreasing the quality of life here and should be looking at diverting resources to another urban center.

I'm with David Attenborough's recently aired views here. We could do with some lower fertility rates in general in this world. India and China have millenia of human existance to figure out themselves how they get their own houses in order, or their increasingly educated populace will just suffer the consequences.

I'm with David Attenborough's recently aired views here. We could do with some lower fertility rates in general in this world. India and China have millenia of human existance to figure out themselves how they get their own houses in order, or their increasingly educated populace will just suffer the consequences.

It' shard to take such claims seriously and it's not so recent but I think David Attenborough is misguided at best these days and possibly an easily mislead type figurehead.

Overpopulation is a dangerous myth. It fails to address the real issues and helps to mask the perpetrators of genuine woe and suffering. It's an easy go-to without much thought, sounds responsible, pragmatic and invokes much head nodding. Yet it's malthusian logic and deeply impoverished rational at best because of that, at worst it's pure mind control a.k.a anti-human ∴ anti-life. I've seen this logic in the ranks of extreme vegans or animal rights activists who deem human life a threat. It's not logical Jim.

Earth is primed to enable life. Spaceship Earth is loaded with a precious yet abundant theming cargo of life! Estimated close to 9 million species of life and the population of each?

Does it matter?

Is it the right question?

I understand how David feels maybe with the encroachment of human habitats into wildlife areas but he's naturally biased in more than one way.

To the topic at hand. Fertility, yes it certainly is dictated by your sense of security and shelter. No doubt about it. Those that have launched an attack on it's stability are engage din a very insidious form of population control that transcends merely controlling the body count.

Have had one child - up to about three years of age - in a two-bed apartment. Moved to a three bed semi and had another. Then moved to a four bed detached with still just the two kids. All were fine in their own way at the time - but it's hard to beat detached with a bit of space...and no noise worries is a big plus for me...

Have had one child - up to about three years of age - in a two-bed apartment. Moved to a three bed semi and had another. Then moved to a four bed detached with still just the two kids. All were fine in their own way at the time - but it's hard to beat detached with a bit of space...and no noise worries is a big plus for me...

The point is that all are appropriate at various stages. Apartment's aren't "bad". For example, small 1-beds enable people in their 20s to live alone at affordable rates, rather than house-sharing. 2-bed apartment can be perfect for a couple with one kid but not ready to commit to an area. If we built decent size 3-bed apartments with decent amenities they would be fine for families too, but unfortunately we don't. The question "when it comes to raising children would living in an apartment put you off somewhat" doesn't make sense -- living in an apartment is a good time to start having kids.

I'm with David Attenborough's recently aired views here. We could do with some lower fertility rates in general in this world. India and China have millenia of human existance to figure out themselves how they get their own houses in order, or their increasingly educated populace will just suffer the consequences.

It' shard to take such claims seriously and it's not so recent but I think David Attenborough is misguided at best these days and possibly an easily mislead type figurehead.

Overpopulation is a dangerous myth. It fails to address the real issues and helps to mask the perpetrators of genuine woe and suffering. It's an easy go-to without much thought, sounds responsible, pragmatic and invokes much head nodding. Yet it's malthusian logic and deeply impoverished rational at best because of that, at worst it's pure mind control a.k.a anti-human ∴ anti-life. I've seen this logic in the ranks of extreme vegans or animal rights activists who deem human life a threat. It's not logical Jim.

Earth is primed to enable life. Spaceship Earth is loaded with a precious yet abundant theming cargo of life! Estimated close to 9 million species of life and the population of each?

Does it matter?

Is it the right question?

I understand how David feels maybe with the encroachment of human habitats into wildlife areas but he's naturally biased in more than one way.

To the topic at hand. Fertility, yes it certainly is dictated by your sense of security and shelter. No doubt about it. Those that have launched an attack on it's stability are engage din a very insidious form of population control that transcends merely controlling the body count.

Of course people should be discouraged from breeding. That's because children are odious little shits and the world would be an enormously pleasanter place without any. I've said it before; we should be grow in tanks and not let loose on the world until we're at least 25.(other opinions are available. )

As Borges said, "Mirrors and procreation are abominations, for they multiply mankind and hence his miseries."

_________________People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of NationsBook I, Chapter X, Part II,